Tuesday, 26 March 2013

Betrayal of Trust - Part 2

Instead of
concentrating on education and using scientific research as a guidance as what
to do; from around the year of 2001 the then Premier of QLD, Mr. Peter Beattie,
suppressed the research and created the expectation in the near future of
closing down any further land development; therefore strangling many farming
families’ opportunity for future income. The result was panic clearing.

Image - print by William Strang, Farmer kneeling before justice.The Beattie
Government continued to fuel these expectations for two entire years until
amendments made to the Vegetation Management Act came into effect in 2003,
where the balance of all other remnant ecosystems was banned from clearing; all
broad scale clearing stopped.

To this day
I have a sense of sadness over this entire farce. The opportunity was lost.
Landholders at the time would’ve been responsive to this research and moved
forward in a positive way to the benefit of both farming and the environment.
Currently, landholders have an even greater reason to mistrust Government with
amendments to Act in 2003, additional amendments in 2005 and the moratorium on
regrowth in April 2009 and the subsequent legislation on regrowth in October
2009.

To offer some
evidence to the statement above that the QLD Premier and Government suppressed
research, the following quote is from Michael Thompson, a senior Rural Press
reporter who writes in the article, Lost battle of Queensland farming,

“Dr
Burrows and a team of Primary Industries and Natural Resources scientists and
economists were asked to prepare a paper for submission to the Productivity
Commission. What that team found was distinctly unpalatable to the Queensland
Government, which then decided to withdraw its participation in the PC inquiry,
and took Dr Burrows’ research into Cabinet to prevent its public release.”

Regional
Vegetation Management Plans

In the
early stage when there was the possibility that tree clearing would, in the
future, be regulated, a process of consultation was undertaken. Regional
committees where assembled of various stakeholders to write management plans
called, Regional Vegetation Management Plans (RVMP’s), of future regulation of
vegetation management at the catchment and property level. Many people
considerable time and resources making an honest effort completing this task
using local knowledge and generational experience. The Regional Vegetation
Management Plans were completed only to have the Government immediately
completely disregard them or use small parts of them out of context with the
original intent.

The
disregard of the role the rural community played in development of the RVMP’s
and also to the lack of recognition to landowner conservationists that retained
considerable remnant vegetation only to be aggressively stood over by
compliance officers after the introduction of the Vegetation Laws in 1999 and
the Amendments that followed. “Compliance Officer” was a new role created in
the QDNR after the Vegetation Management Act 1999 came into effect. It saw the
change of agency staff working with farmers in an atmosphere of goodwill and
mutual respect to that of policing, prosecution and distrust. Previous
important conservation measures such as soil conservation work was abandoned
and these personnel moved into vegetation management work

As
an exercise in winning the hearts and minds of primary producers, it fails.

Whether
it is encouraging voluntary conservation measures or water use efficiency, it
is the carrot rather than the big stick approach that gets the thumbs up.

The
cheapest way to get things done does not involve enforcement or heavy-handed
administration.

If
we are to achieve a sustainable future for rural Queensland, cooperation from
landholders will be necessary.

Decisions
based on access to Commonwealth funding and alienating primary producers might
produce backslapping over coffee in the State Government's Executive Building.

However,
it makes the development of a long-term policy for integrated natural resource
management increasingly difficult.”

Later in
2003, sadly all too common became stories such as this one in September 2003,
Disappointment and anger at guilty plea. After reading this article there is no
doubt as to some of the reasons for landowners feeling vilified, victimised and
alienated from Government and agency staff.

“Last
week the Surat grazier was forced to plead guilty to a case he could have won,
with the Crown's case built around information he volunteered while allegedly
being secretly tape-recorded.

But
due to the "horrendous" financial cost of fighting the comparably
unlimited legal resources of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Mr
White was forced to succumb to the contentious charge.

Now
Mr White, 60, is filled with disappointment and anger.

Even
in cutting his losses, he still faces $15,000 in his own legal fees, plus $4800
in Crown legal costs as awarded by Magistrate Dennis Butel, who fined Mr White
$600 but ordered that no conviction be recorded.

If
Mr White had contested the charge he was facing legal fees of about $30,000 if
he had won, or up to $50,000 if he had lost, a heartbreaking prospect on the
back of a devastating drought.”